Another 300f4 IS or 400f5.6 question...

[elmo_2006]

...some may not be happy as I have raised a similar thread about this query and I do apologize as somehow I missed seeing this prior.


I'm in the same boat and can't decide over the 300 4L or the 400 5.6L.Looking at "Nate's" photo's, itlooks like I'm leaning towards the 400 5.6L.


There has also been mention of the 100-400 5.6L, but is this not as slow as the 400 5.6L? I have the 70-200 2.8 IS so the 100-200 to me is out of the question and prefer the prime over the zoom (I don't like the push-pull). The only benefit that I can see with the 100-400 over the 400 is the IS functionality but again, you won't be freezing the action only hand-holding capability when stepping down (??).


I know I won't be using either during the evening as this is where my 70-200 2.8 comes in. I would then ask those with experience with either lens,is the 400 5.6L slower than the 300 4L to auto-focus when primarily used for nature shots during the day (typical sunny day)? Which one is the sharper with or without a 1.4x TC. My camera body is a 450D but I'm also leaning towards upgrading to the 7D. Maybe Henrys or Vistek could give me special pricing on the bundle - dare to dream!


Thanks

[gschaps]

Am I the only person who thinks the Sigma 100-300 F/4 deserves a look?


Advantages : fixed f/4, zoom, fixed length, portability, price


Disadvantages: No IS (could happenin the future- Sigma's recently announced OS for several of their popular lenses)

[neuroanatomist]

Disadvantages: No IS (could happenin the future- Sigma's recently announced OS for several of their popular lenses)

How about AF issues? I will admit I've never used a Sigma lens - but I am somewhat concerned that many (most?) of Bryan's reviews of Sigma lenses, and many of the other reviews on the 'net using Sigma lenses with Canon bodies, mention issues with AF performance (and Sigma's notorious QC issues). Is this lens an exception? The photozone.de review is quite favorable, and it's specs look quite nice...

[gschaps]

I've read elsewhere AF with this lens requires "technique" -essentially pre-focusingfrequently even when not actually capturing images.


I plan to rent for ten days starting March 12th. I'll let you know around then.

[neuroanatomist]

I've read elsewhere AF with this lens requires "technique" -essentially pre-focusingfrequently even when not actually capturing images.

Pseudo-manual-sort-of-automatic focus?If autofocus isn't really<span>autofocus, what good is it?For myself, I'll pass...but let us know how it works out for you! Or how it will have already previously worked out for you in the future that has already passed into the past...

I plan to rent for ten days starting March 12th.

Where'd you get a Way-Back machine? Do you mean March 12th, 2011? That's planning pretty far in advance! []

[gschaps]

...what good is it?

We'll see. For me it's about the image. The rest is chit-chat.

I plan to rent for ten days starting March 12th.

Yes, of course. I meant April 12.

Where'd you get a Way-Back machine? Do you mean March 12th, 2011? That's planning pretty far in advance! [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]
<p style="CLEAR: both"]

<p style="CLEAR: both"]That's clever. I've got one for you: When's a doctor a real doctor? Answer: When he's practicing medicine. Cheers!

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, of course. I meant April 12.

Yes, I assumed so. []

I've got one for you: When's a doctor a real doctor? Answer: When he's practicing medicine.

LOL! In fact, I'm not a real doctor - I'm the fake kind, PhD, not MD. I am guilty of the occasional self-diagnosis, though... [:P]

[Brendan7]

Jayson, just for clarification, are you buying the 400 f/5.6 for sports? For birds it's a nice lens but for other uses it just tends to be a little slow. It's not that big of a deal but sometimes that f4 aperture can save you. Rent the lenses and find out


-brendan

[Jayson]

I was seriously considering the 400 for sports and other photo taking chances, such as birds. I had a chance to try the 100-400 and I know the quality is pretty comparableto the 400 prime. Anyway, long story short, sitting on the sidelines of a little kiddie soccer game, I found myself to be more in the 300 range. I think that might be the way to go so I am going to give that a shot. Thank you for all of your replies, I really appreciate it. I also thinking that the MFD of the 300 will be a bonus. I didn't think it would be initially, but after a weekend of pure shooting time, I noticed that I did shoot many things at the MFD of the 70-200 and thought I would like to have my macro. I believe my choice was made with those two situations. 300 F4 IS it is!.


Again, thanks for the input everyone.


Jayson

[Brendan7]

Congrats Jayson!


Really nice to have another 300 f/4 IS shooter on this forum.